Nothing is inherently right or wrong. Different cultures have, at varying points in history, held differing morals to be right or wrong, needed or not. Moral Objectivity is impossible.
Agreed.
I believe in good and evil, right and wrong.
Ok, good on you. Believe as thou wilt.
I also believe in winners and losers.
Of course there are winners and losers. Whenever two parties oppose each other there is often a result where only one party gets what they wanted. In such a case that party is often viewed as "the winner" and the other party as "the loser". But then now we're stating the obvious lol
Funny, I consider myself socially conservative.
Though I also consider myself a Lutheran Heretic. Take it as you will.
Indulgences are a b*tch, aren't they? ;)
A lot of people would disagree that there are in fact right and wrongs in the world and that this is inherent to all people.
In most instances, right and wrong and good and evil can be morally relative.
Is a cat evil if it kills a mouse for no purpose? No one cares. Are you evil when you step on an ant? No one cares. Suddenly its a matter of "right" and "wrong" or "good" or "evil" when the victim is human? Sure its not conducive to a good society to go running around killing people or taking their things or generally causing mischief, but its not inherently good or evil, as there is no such thing.
Kill a person, you're a murderer.
Kill a hundred, you're a soldier.Kill a thousand, you're a conqueror.
Kill a million, you're playing World of Warcraft.
Kill a person, you're a murderer.
Kill a hundred, you're a soldier.
Kill a thousand, you're a conqueror.
Kill a million, you're playing World of Warcraft.
Heh.
Interestingly, I'm seeing less of a disagreement between Conservative vs. Liberal here than I am in an absolutist vs. shades-of-gray world views. Examples:
Sadly, I see a lot of absolutist thinking coming from both parties: whoever implies nonsense like "all U.S. soldiers are mass murderers" receives my deepest, most unmitigated ire.
Interestingly, I'm seeing less of a disagreement between Conservative vs. Liberal here than I am in an absolutist vs. shades-of-gray world views. Examples:
"America is the greatest county on Earth" implies that "in what way?" is a nonsense question, because if something is better in any way, it must automatically be infinitely better in ALL ways. That's like saying "Michael Jordan is the greatest athlete in the last 30 years," implying that it's impossbible that Michael Jordan could out-play Tiger Woods in basketball, but also lose to him in golf.
Statements like "should law-abiding citizens be disarmed?" imply that everyone on Earth visibly wears a black hat or a white hat at all times; the "bad guys" spend their lives raping and murdering, and always beat their mothers, and the "good guys" never so much as get a speeding ticket. It's impossible to imagine anyone being, well, human (in between).
Etc. Sadly, I see a lot of absolutist thinking coming from both parties: whoever implies nonsense like "all U.S. soldiers are mass murderers" receives my deepest, most unmitigated ire.
+1
I think you nailed it.
Yes but are you ok with being wrong? :)A lot of people would disagree that there are in fact right and wrongs in the world and that this is inherent to all people.I'm ok with a lot of people being wrong. :)
I am always right spelling not counting, have been since I was born. It's my name. Sorry could not resist.
|
Yes but are you ok with being wrong? :)A lot of people would disagree that there are in fact right and wrongs in the world and that this is inherent to all people.I'm ok with a lot of people being wrong. :)I am always right spelling not counting, have been since I was born. It's my name. Sorry could not resist.
LMAO
|
Interestingly, I'm seeing less of a disagreement between Conservative vs. Liberal here than I am in an absolutist vs. shades-of-gray world views. Examples:
"America is the greatest county on Earth" implies that "in what way?" is a nonsense question, because if something is better in any way, it must automatically be infinitely better in ALL ways. That's like saying "Michael Jordan is the greatest athlete in the last 30 years," implying that it's impossbible that Michael Jordan could out-play Tiger Woods in basketball, but also lose to him in golf.
Statements like "should law-abiding citizens be disarmed?" imply that everyone on Earth visibly wears a black hat or a white hat at all times; the "bad guys" spend their lives raping and murdering, and always beat their mothers, and the "good guys" never so much as get a speeding ticket. It's impossible to imagine anyone being, well, human (in between).
Etc. Sadly, I see a lot of absolutist thinking coming from both parties: whoever implies nonsense like "all U.S. soldiers are mass murderers" receives my deepest, most unmitigated ire.
Obviously the realities of life make this a more complex issue than I pose it as. However, I was limited on words and needed something that quickly summed up the position I was trying to make. I came up with this statement after reading a Pew Research poll that had been taken on world opinions. Sadly they have taken the poll off their site or I would link to it. However, I will give you the numbers that inspired my statement.
In the poll, conducted in 2005 of 1000 citizens each of The United States, Italy, Canada, Great Britan, Germany, France and Japan, there were a number of questions asked. Two results really stood out to me. The first was that 75% of Americans said they were proud of their country. 54% of Canadians said the same thing, 38% of British, 22% of Italians, 19% of Germans, 14% of Japanese, and 12% of French citizens responded similarly. The other was that 84% of Americans believed that they could become successful if they worked hard and applied themselves. The numbers were about the same for Canada, at 73%, and Japan at 69%. In Europe however, the numbers were very different. Only 23% of Italians, 22% of Germans, 13% of Britash and 8% of French citizens surveyed said the same thing. Based on those numbers I concluded that one of two things were true. Either they found the absolute worst people they could to represent the other countries, which is possible, or there is something that sets Americans apart, if only psychologically.
However, that was more words than I was allowed for the assignment.
|
Okay, I can't speak for other conservatives, but as there has been a lot of talk about liberal and conservative these days I would like to post something that I wrote just about two years ago that expresses what I, as a conservative believe. It's called the Articles of Conservatism, intended to be in the vein of the Articles of Confederation.
Great statement - I agree 100% and I would add:
I believe that when the government give people money to handle their problems it creates dependency on the government and makes people weaker rather than stronger and give the government even more power over their lives.
Okay, I can't speak for other conservatives, but as there has been a lot of talk about liberal and conservative these days I would like to post something that I wrote just about two years ago that expresses what I, as a conservative believe. It's called the Articles of Conservatism, intended to be in the vein of the Articles of Confederation.
Great statement - I agree 100% and I would add:
I believe that when the government give people money to handle their problems it creates dependency on the government and makes people weaker rather than stronger and give the government even more power over their lives.
One thing I see often is that a lot of people who consider themselves anti-big government trot out this argument, while, on the other hand, they say that these things should be handled by charities and that they'd much rather pay to a charity than pay the equivalent in taxes.
Wouldn't that just make people dependent on charities instead then? Make people weaker rather than stronger and give the charity even more power over their lives?
Okay, I can't speak for other conservatives, but as there has been a lot of talk about liberal and conservative these days I would like to post something that I wrote just about two years ago that expresses what I, as a conservative believe. It's called the Articles of Conservatism, intended to be in the vein of the Articles of Confederation.
Great statement - I agree 100% and I would add:
I believe that when the government give people money to handle their problems it creates dependency on the government and makes people weaker rather than stronger and give the government even more power over their lives.
One thing I see often is that a lot of people who consider themselves anti-big government trot out this argument, while, on the other hand, they say that these things should be handled by charities and that they'd much rather pay to a charity than pay the equivalent in taxes.
Wouldn't that just make people dependent on charities instead then? Make people weaker rather than stronger and give the charity even more power over their lives?
That's on their end, not ours. The big difference is that giving to a charity is optional while paying taxes is not.
I frankly don't consider it generosity if it isn't optional.
That's on their end, not ours. The big difference is that giving to a charity is optional while paying taxes is not.
I frankly don't consider it generosity if it isn't optional.
I wasn't addressing whether it had anything to do with generosity, but rather whether it wouldn't just create the same kind of dependency, just with another institution?
I wasn't addressing whether it had anything to do with generosity, but rather whether it wouldn't just create the same kind of dependency, just with another institution?That's on their end, not ours. The big difference is that giving to a charity is optional while paying taxes is not.
I frankly don't consider it generosity if it isn't optional.
I don't know, but I for one don't consider that the issue.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 8
|
In the poll, conducted in 2005 of 1000 citizens each of The United States, Italy, Canada, Great Britan, Germany, France and Japan, there were a number of questions asked. Two results really stood out to me. The first was that 75% of Americans said they were proud of their country. 54% of Canadians said the same thing, 38% of British, 22% of Italians, 19% of Germans, 14% of Japanese, and 12% of French citizens responded similarly. The other was that 84% of Americans believed that they could become successful if they worked hard and applied themselves. The numbers were about the same for Canada, at 73%, and Japan at 69%. In Europe however, the numbers were very different. Only 23% of Italians, 22% of Germans, 13% of Britash and 8% of French citizens surveyed said the same thing. Based on those numbers I concluded that one of two things were true. Either they found the absolute worst people they could to represent the other countries, which is possible, or there is something that sets Americans apart, if only psychologically.
All that suggests is that Americans are more nationalistic and believe more strongly in meritocracy. It doesn't mean America is actually greater or more meritocratic. It probably says more about the extent to which Americans see their nation's greatness proclaimed by the media.
If we were to take surveys as evidence, then Denmark should be the greatest because Danes are the happiest.
I don't know, but I for one don't consider that the issue.I wasn't addressing whether it had anything to do with generosity, but rather whether it wouldn't just create the same kind of dependency, just with another institution?That's on their end, not ours. The big difference is that giving to a charity is optional while paying taxes is not.
I frankly don't consider it generosity if it isn't optional.
But that's the exact issue Shem brought up, that, from his point of view, helping people out financially creates a dependency. I just pointed out that a lot of people, you included it seems, would rather pay to charities than pay a percentage of your taxes to help these people out. But people are then still being helped financially, thus, in Shem's view, creating a dependency, just from the charities this time, not the government. Thus charities are just as "evil" as "big government" in this instance.
|
|
That's on their end, not ours. The big difference is that giving to a charity is optional while paying taxes is not.
I frankly don't consider it generosity if it isn't optional.
I recently read an article that suggested that the government doing "charity" work and people that support that view are in fact "un christian" rather than the opposite.
The premise (this is from memory) was by forcing people to pay taxes to support "charity" took away the personal responsibilty to help others and the personal choice to do so. Thus no "spiritual" reward could be derived from this type of act. It was not voluntary.
Of course for non spritual types this would have little bearing.
I recently read an article that suggested that the government doing "charity" work and people that support that view are in fact "un christian" rather than the opposite.
The premise (this is from memory) was by forcing people to pay taxes to support "charity" took away the personal responsibilty to help others and the personal choice to do so. Thus no "spiritual" reward could be derived from this type of act. It was not voluntary.
I would agree.
In the poll, conducted in 2005 of 1000 citizens each of The United States, Italy, Canada, Great Britan, Germany, France and Japan, there were a number of questions asked. Two results really stood out to me. The first was that 75% of Americans said they were proud of their country. 54% of Canadians said the same thing, 38% of British, 22% of Italians, 19% of Germans, 14% of Japanese, and 12% of French citizens responded similarly. The other was that 84% of Americans believed that they could become successful if they worked hard and applied themselves. The numbers were about the same for Canada, at 73%, and Japan at 69%. In Europe however, the numbers were very different. Only 23% of Italians, 22% of Germans, 13% of Britash and 8% of French citizens surveyed said the same thing. Based on those numbers I concluded that one of two things were true. Either they found the absolute worst people they could to represent the other countries, which is possible, or there is something that sets Americans apart, if only psychologically.All that suggests is that Americans are more nationalistic and believe more strongly in meritocracy. It doesn't mean America is actually greater or more meritocratic. It probably says more about the extent to which Americans see their nation's greatness proclaimed by the media.
If we were to take surveys as evidence, then Denmark should be the greatest because Danes are the happiest.
Denmark IS the greatest country! :-D
..
.
Okay, so we have a lot of flaws too, just like all countries do. I don't think any one country can be the greatest in all areas, one has to find the one with the least blemishes and stupid rules one can live with.
I) We believe that America is the greatest country in the World, because of the efforts of its people.
Hehe. American nationalism always gives me a good laugh. I'm Canadian, so I can afford to. Hmmm, I suppose if I was in a region plundered by American corporations I wouldn't be laughing....
For my part, I prefer the more Canadian "balanced suspicion" of ourselves as a nation. I believe it better paves the way to restraint and improvement.
Just a bunch of stream of conciousness replies from a pretty much fiscally conservative, pragmatist, realist, social libertairan kind of guy...who has over the past 15 years come to increasing loathe the present day American conservative "movement", the religious right, and the republican party.
Okay, I can't speak for other conservatives, but as there has been a lot of talk about liberal and conservative these days I would like to post something that I wrote just about two years ago that expresses what I, as a conservative believe. It's called the Articles of Conservatism, intended to be in the vein of the Articles of Confederation.
I) We believe that America is the greatest country in the World, because of the efforts of its people.
A matter of opinion. It's certainly where I'd prefer to live, but Swedes and Brits may have other opinions. And what about conservatives in other countries? Is America the only place with conservatives? Why are you limiting your philosophy to one country?
II) We believe that everyone is capable of great things.
Except for the profoundly retarded or profoundly ill, and those who are just too long gone in a life of addiction or crime... Almost everyone is "capable" of great things, but few actually take steps to attain the ability to do great things, and even if they did, there is just not enough room in the upper echelons of anything for more than a small percentage to actually DO great things. And it also takes money for people to attain their full potential and do great things - money for education, infrastructure, etc. See
the respnse to point VI.
III) We believe that the best solution for anyone’s problems are the ones they come up with themselves. Americans are smarter than government when it comes to their own individual needs.
Simplistic. On the whole, this is true for day to day activities, for people going about living their lives. However even there a lot of people mess up and government vigilance and intervention, in the form of the law enforcement agencies, is required. For example, a lot of people have the problem of not having enough money. Many of the solutions they come up with involve robbing others, cheating others, or investing their money with people who are trying to cheat them.
Where it gets quite messy is in the larger picture. For example, if the problem I have asthma, and a soot spewing factory is being built down the street, I will have a potentially much bigger problem on my hands. One possible solution is to blow up the factory, but that wouldn't be lawful. Another possible solution is to move, but that may be financially impossible, beside why should I move because someone else is doing something that harms me. The proper course of action would be to band together with fellow citizens and try to get the government to use its power to aid me by changing/enforcing the zoning/pollution laws.
BTW this is the sort of thought process that caused me to reject conservatism. This belief that everyone will be fine if they are just left alone to live their lives as atomistic individuals. Sorry, the frontier ended in the late 1800s. Today we live in a world of vast national and transnational institutions and forces that can, and often do crush people like ants (and often, as with ants, not out of malice, but pure indifference and ignorace). People who don't utilize the powers of government and other large organizations to protect and advance their self interest will be rolled over by those that do. Conservatism seems to be mentally stuck on the 18th and 19th century frontier.
IV) We believe that everyone is responsible for his or her own actions.
Yes, but remember that if you are responsible for your actions, that means that you are responsible for all the CONSEQUENCES of your actions.
That is something that a lot of conservatives just don't seem to get. For example, if someone owns a large factory that puts out a certain amount of pollution, and said pollution is known to create certain adverse health effects, or lower property values because of the smell, it is totally fair to tax your business to compensate for these bad effects or force you to take actions to lessen them to within levels that both your business and the community can live with.
V) We believe that the greatest asset America has is freedom and it should be exported at every opportunity.
There are certainly a few genocidal maniacs that are so bad that an invasion is justified, even without provocation, but.....
Nobody can export freedom. If a culture does not value it, or even if a substantial minority in that culture doesn't value it, you will get nowhere. You can invade and kill the tyrants, but you can't occupy anyone forever, and as soon as you leave, more tyrants will come. Everyone likes to point out Germany and Japan, but they forget that both of these countries tried democracy once and failed at it before they were ultimately successful at the point of a gun, after they had been totally decimated in a war and their former leadership had lost all credibility with most of their populace. Iraq is probably headed down the path to Saddam II, and I think the most we can hope for in Afghanistan is warlord rule by someone other than the Taliban and Al Queda.
Besides, have you looked at the bill for the Iraq war recently? How exactly are we supposed to pay for all this freedom exporting without bankrupting ourselves?
VI) We believe that government’s role is to create a climate where everyone can achieve their greatness and then get out of their way. As Thoreau said “That government is best that governs least.”
A government that create "a climate where everyone can achieve their greatness" sounds like a pretty activist government to me. Let's see...To achieve greatness, people first and foremost need food and shelter, so the segment of the population that through bad luck or ignorance finds themselves without that has to be provided for. And to achieve greatness, you need to be able to afford transportation in order to look for a job or get to school, so some money has to be provided for that, along with roads and bridges and their maintainance, and access to books and the internet would be good to, so free public libraries are in order. And then school itself doesn't come cheap, indeed most of the population probably couldn't afford private schools for their kids, so public schools or at least generous vouchers are needed, and college costs are through the roof, so maybe some cheaper government sponsored community colleges and student loans are called for....and very sick or dead people can't achieve greatness, so some sort of universal access to quality health care is needed...and remember that old people can still achieve greatness, even if they are too frail to work, and not all of them had high enough paying jobs to save enough for retirement, so social security sounds like a good thing, and speaking of high paying jobs, you can't achieve greatness if you spend 12 hours a day in a factory and spend the rest of your time worrying about paying the bills, so maybe labor laws and a minimum wage is in order...and come to think about it, most people STILL wouldn't have enough money to afford the finest schools and start their own businesses and do other things necessary to acheive really great greatness, and maybe it's impossible to get everyone to that level, but we can sure make it easier for the vast majority of them if we cut taxes on the middle class and poor, maybe all the way down to zero, and raise them on the top 5% to make up the difference (after all, they would only be giving up some of their yachts and vacation homes, which aren't needed to achieve greatness anyway)!
Maybe if you thought about what your beliefs imply, you'd turn into a flaming Socialist.
VII) We believe that the Constitution is an inspired document and the best source of knowledge about government.
Inspired yes, but a document written by men (not gods) living in an agrarian frontier society toward the end of the 19th century. It's constantly in danger of becoming out of date and out of sync with society's current values, good thing they put in an ammendment process.
VII) We believe in the rule of law and in the existence of right and wrong.
Then please explain conservative's widespread support for torture. As for right and wrong, I believe that these are purely human concepts invented to allow societies function in peace. There is no god, and no right and wrong in nature, only random chance and the law of the jungle.
IX) We believe that taxes serve as a roadblock to economic growth and that lower taxes result in more money for the government.
Very few economists believe that. It was certainly true of the old Communist coutries where taxes were effectively 100%, that's supposedly where Laffer got the idea from. It might even have been true in the US before Reagan lowered the tax rate. It almost certainly isn't now. The curve peaks at a certain point then goes down.
X) We believe that all people have the right to worship or not worship God as they choose. Government should not dictate how or where a person may worship. A person should not demand that government or private individuals change the way that they act to accommodate that person’s beliefs.
Who's "we?" Please try to convince as many of your fellow conservatives of this as possible. For my part, I'd prefer that the government stay out of my wallet AND my bedroom as much as possible.
XI) We believe that a person should be judged on their own merits and not on biological factors like gender or race that they have no control over. This applies to both good and bad judgements.
And sexual orientation? Again, who's "we."
XII) We believe that everyone has the right to think for themselves and to rethink their beliefs when confronted with contrary evidence....
I encourage all conservatives to do that rethinking when being confronted with contrary evidence part.
I would think a conservative would believe in stating a problem based on facts and trends; listen to input on solutions; choose a solution; create a plan or strategy to effect greatest outcome from greatest number and best value; then enact it.
I think a liberal would see everything as a problem; throw money at everything and hope some money lands on someone who has the genius to make things a little better.
Though it would seem one of these is rational and the other not rational; when you effect the corrupt machinery of government; the results come out nearly the same; I have seen both conservative and liberal governments and they both seem pretty bad; for me, middle of the road seems to be the only place anything gets accomplished for the benefit of all rather than the few.
Okay, I can't speak for other conservatives, but as there has been a lot of talk about liberal and conservative these days I would like to post something that I wrote just about two years ago that expresses what I, as a conservative believe. It's called the Articles of Conservatism, intended to be in the vein of the Articles of Confederation.
Well, if all conservatives believed as you believe (and if that was all they believed) then I would probably still call myself a Republican. Unfortunately, that's not all that conservatives believe. For example, if you take a look at the Republican Party Platform, you will see that they support the unrestricted right of American citizens to bear arms. They also support legal protections for the American flag; using nuclear power and coal as a form of 'clean energy;' establishing English as the country's national language; and allowing religious groups to discriminate against same sex couples who wish to adopt children. Meanwhile, they oppose a woman's right to an abortion; reinstatement of the Fairness Doctrine; marriage between partners of the same sex; and any form of amnesty for illegal immigrants.
Given that the Republicans are the largest conservative party in America, I find it inconceivable that we could have any sort of discussion about what conservatives believe without including, or at least acknowledging, some of these beliefs.
I would like to comment on the following statement you made.
Conservatives believe that government’s role is to create a climate where everyone can achieve their greatness and then get out of their way. As Thoreau said “That government is best that governs least.”
If conservatives are going to go around quoting Thoreau, they should read and understand him in full. For starters, the quote you mention is not Thoreau's quote. Rather, he is paraphrasing a magazine motto that was popular at the time.
Second, Thoreau did not believe that government should create a climate where everyone can achieve their greatness and then get out of the way. Rather, he believed that all governments, including Democracy, are a poor reflection of the people's will. To quote him more fully.
I heartily accept the motto, "That government is best which governs least;" and I should like to see it acted up to more rapidly and systematically. Carried out, it finally amounts to this, which also I believe- "That government is best which governs not at all"; and when men are prepared for it, that will be the kind of government which they will have. Government is at best but an expedient; but most governments are usually, and all governments are sometimes, inexpedient. The objections which have been brought against a standing army, and they are many and weighty, and deserve to prevail, may also at last be brought against a standing government. The standing army is only an arm of the standing government. The government itself, which is only the mode which the people have chosen to execute their will, is equally liable to be abused and perverted before the people can act through it.
In other words, Thoreau is not advocating a smaller government. He is advocating the abolition of government altogether. He believes that governments are slow and only react to the will of the people when its citizens become indifferent about an issue. As he puts it, "When the majority shall at length vote for the abolition of slavery, it will be because they are indifferent to slavery, or because there is but little slavery left to be abolished by their vote. They will then be the only slaves. Only his vote can hasten the abolition of slavery who asserts his own freedom by his vote."
Thoreau's essay is about our role as citizens. If we oppose the actions of our government, he contends, then it is our duty to rebel against it and refuse to fund it with our taxes. That's why he was thrown in jail. He refused to pay his taxes because he opposed the institution of slavery and the Mexican-American War. As he states,
Those who, while they disapprove of the character and measures of a government, yield to it their allegiance and support are undoubtedly its most conscientious supporters, and so frequently the most serious obstacles to reform. Some are petitioning the State to dissolve the Union, to disregard the requisitions of the President. Why do they not dissolve it themselves— the union between themselves and the State— and refuse to pay their quota into its treasury? Do not they stand in the same relation to the State that the State does to the Union? And have not the same reasons prevented the State from resisting the Union which have prevented them from resisting the State?
If Thoreau were alive today, I doubt he would consider his views conservative. On the contrary, his opposition to war, his criticisms of industry, and his belief that the majority cannot be trusted to serve the needs of the minority sound remarkably liberal to me.
|
|
How to do it w/o paving over a culture, or breaking the bank, that's the trick.
If we break the bank, at least Coca Cola made sales. Perhaps we can convince that said country to privatize its public ran systems so we can make another back door killing. I love how our military has to let private companies do their job for 10 times the cost. Who wants to fight a war for companies? I swear, War Inc. is not far off. Why don't the conservatives take a page from one of their own and realize Eisenhower was right in his farewell address , or is it already too late? The system was designed to protect the American people, but now it is run by people that protect the companies they had previously worked for. Who better to run government organizations than the companies they once policed???
I still can't believe I can be hit with charges for saying "This hamburber made me sick" in a McDonald's. Who passed that hamburger flippin' law?
A lot of people would disagree that there are in fact right and wrongs in the world and that this is inherent to all people.In most instances, right and wrong and good and evil can be morally relative.
I always find it strange when people talk about moral relativism.
Anybody remember the case in Florida (I think) a couple of years back, where a young girl was kidnapped from her home, tortured, and then ultimately killed by being buried alive. If someone doesn't feel comfortable calling that Wrong or Evil (notice the capital letters), I find that a bit worrisome. I don't really care if someone can find some culture somewhere and when that would find that behavior acceptable, that doesn't make it not Wrong or Evil in my mind. Cultures can be wrong. Slavery in the US was still Wrong, even if it was acceptable at the time. Being socially acceptable and not being Wrong are not the same thing. Of course all of this is IMO.
Anybody remember the case in Florida (I think) a couple of years back, where a young girl was kidnapped from her home, tortured, and then ultimately killed by being buried alive. If someone doesn't feel comfortable calling that Wrong or Evil (notice the capital letters), I find that a bit worrisome. I don't really care if someone can find some culture somewhere and when that would find that behavior acceptable, that doesn't make it not Wrong or Evil in my mind. Cultures can be wrong. Slavery in the US was still Wrong, even if it was acceptable at the time. Being socially acceptable and not being Wrong are not the same thing. Of course all of this is IMO.
I don't stop thinking things are unfortunate, cruel, malicious, and unnecessary, just because I don't associate the words "Wrong" or "Evil" to those acts. I don't feel any free license to commit those acts because I don't associate them with those two words. I don't feel any less devastated when I hear that such cruelty has been perpetrated on another, especially one so helpless as a child. Its a terrible, horrible thing that should never happen. That still doesn't mean though that I have to hang the label "Wrong" or "Evil" on the act, to make it any less reprehensible.
Using your point about slavery, then do you suggest that the vast, vast, majority of American citizens during the time before civil rights, and especially during the time of slavery, were clearly all evil? They all had evil in their hearts and delighted in bringing pain and suffering upon others? I don't think you can personally. Certainly today it is widely seen as morally "wrong" but back then it certainly wasn't. This is an example showing clearly how what is "Right" and what is "Wrong" changes over time and from place to place and from person to person. It actually seems to strengthen the case that there is no absolute moral "Right" or "Wrong".
Anybody remember the case in Florida (I think) a couple of years back, where a young girl was kidnapped from her home, tortured, and then ultimately killed by being buried alive. If someone doesn't feel comfortable calling that Wrong or Evil (notice the capital letters), I find that a bit worrisome. I don't really care if someone can find some culture somewhere and when that would find that behavior acceptable, that doesn't make it not Wrong or Evil in my mind. Cultures can be wrong. Slavery in the US was still Wrong, even if it was acceptable at the time. Being socially acceptable and not being Wrong are not the same thing. Of course all of this is IMO.I don't stop thinking things are unfortunate, cruel, malicious, and unnecessary, just because I don't associate the words "Wrong" or "Evil" to those acts. I don't feel any free license to commit those acts because I don't associate them with those two words. I don't feel any less devastated when I hear that such cruelty has been perpetrated on another, especially one so helpless as a child. Its a terrible, horrible thing that should never happen. That still doesn't mean though that I have to hang the label "Wrong" or "Evil" on the act, to make it any less reprehensible.
To me that just sounds like you are playing word games. You say it is "reprehensible" but not "wrong" or "evil". I fail to see the distinction.
Using your point about slavery, then do you suggest that the vast, vast, majority of American citizens during the time before civil rights, and especially during the time of slavery, were clearly all evil? They all had evil in their hearts and delighted in bringing pain and suffering upon others? I don't think you can personally. Certainly today it is widely seen as morally "wrong" but back then it certainly wasn't. This is an example showing clearly how what is "Right" and what is "Wrong" changes over time and from place to place and from person to person. It actually seems to strengthen the case that there is no absolute moral "Right" or "Wrong".
Well considering the vast majority of American citizens during that time did not own slaves, I would say no they probably weren't all evil. With respect to that issue, if they did own slaves or supported owning slaves, I would think they were wrong. If they went out of their way to abuse their slaves, I would certainly have no problem in labeling them evil as well. But even during those times, there were people who knew it was wrong. Who spoke out against it, who risked their very lives to stop it and free those people. Just because something was accepted didn't make it any less wrong.
Again, IMO of course.
|
Okay, I can't speak for other conservatives, but as there has been a lot of talk about liberal and conservative these days I would like to post something that I wrote just about two years ago that expresses what I, as a conservative believe. It's called the Articles of Conservatism, intended to be in the vein of the Articles of Confederation.
I) We believe that America is the greatest country in the World, because of the efforts of its people.
II) We believe that everyone is capable of great things.
III) We believe that the best solution for anyone’s problems are the ones they come up with themselves. Americans are smarter than government when it comes to their own individual needs.
IV) We believe that everyone is responsible for his or her own actions.
V) We believe that the greatest asset America has is freedom and it should be exported at every opportunity.
VI) We believe that government’s role is to create a climate where everyone can achieve their greatness and then get out of their way. As Thoreau said “That government is best that governs least.”
VII) We believe that the Constitution is an inspired document and the best source of knowledge about government.
VII) We believe in the rule of law and in the existence of right and wrong.
IX) We believe that taxes serve as a roadblock to economic growth and that lower taxes result in more money for the government.
X) We believe that all people have the right to worship or not worship God as they choose. Government should not dictate how or where a person may worship. A person should not demand that government or private individuals change the way that they act to accommodate that person’s beliefs.
XI) We believe that a person should be judged on their own merits and not on biological factors like gender or race that they have no control over. This applies to both good and bad judgements.
XII) We believe that everyone has the right to think for themselves and to rethink their beliefs when confronted with contrary evidence....
wow pretty cool list.
Sounds a lot like a liberal list to me.
To be a Conservative list you forgot to list Anti-Abortion, Anti-Gay marriage, XI does not apply to conservatives at all. You don't find many liberals in a KKK rally. Line VII needs to read "Divinely Inspired" and Line VIII needs to add "and we will legislate what is right and wrong so the populace need not think about it." And line IV should add "unless you have enough money to buy your way out of responsibility"
Good idea, but not really a Conservative list at all.
As one of the few passport-holding Americans, I'd like to add that many, if not all countries in this wide world believe their own to be "the best" and often come up with some very tenuous logic to "prove" it. The absolutism of (neo)conservatism is one of the reasons America's foreign relations are in such a crappy state. The same for Iran, Taliban Afghanistan, North Korea, Thailand (my current home) and many other ideologically-oriented countries. Luckily, such absolutism allows adherents to not care. If what I've said offends, I didn't mean you. I don't mean to imply the countries listed above have problems of equal magnitude, just of similar cause. I certainly see a difference between US, N. Korea, and lovely Thailand.
Zo
In the poll, conducted in 2005 of 1000 citizens each of The United States, Italy, Canada, Great Britan, Germany, France and Japan, there were a number of questions asked. Two results really
stood out to me. The first was that 75% of Americans said they were proud of their country. 54% of Canadians said the same thing, 38% of British, 22% of Italians, 19% of Germans, 14% of Japanese, and 12% of French citizens responded similarly. The other was that 84% of Americans believed that they could become successful if they worked hard and applied themselves. The numbers were about the same for Canada, at 73%, and Japan at 69%. In Europe however, the numbers were very different.
Only 23% of Italians, 22% of Germans, 13% of British and 8% of French citizens surveyed said the same thing. Based on those numbers I concluded that one of two things were true. Either they found the absolute worst people they could to represent the other countries, which is possible, or there is something that sets Americans apart, if only
psychologically.
Ah, I think that survey missed a point there, which is more evident if your familiar with the British in particular.
The poll probably asked the same questions, and while an American and a British citizen, who are both equally somewhat proud of their country could be asked 'Do you love America/Britain?'
American: 'Yeah, sure, I love America!'
Britain: 'Uh, I guess it's good.'
All this means is that they will answer the question different ways, and whatever about applying to the first question, it certainly applies to the second, most British people who are really going to go for something won't say it in the way an American would, and its easy to see where the misunderstanding would come from there. An American giving a survey could easily take it up wrong.
American: 'Yeah, sure, I love America!'Britain: 'Uh, I guess it's good.'
LOL. This sums up my British friends in a nutshell. Now just ask them about Liverpool vs. Man U and it's a different story!!!
Zo
American: 'Yeah, sure, I love America!'Britain: 'Uh, I guess it's good.'
LOL. This sums up my British friends in a nutshell. Now just ask them about Liverpool vs. Man U and it's a different story!!!
Zo
Yup, the Irish (me) are like that too in many ways, its not that the people are THAT different, its more poor cultural translation.
Yup, the Irish (me) are like that too in many ways, its not that the people are THAT different, its more poor cultural translation.
Whereabouts are you from, if it's not too personal? My Irish mates (yes, mates. I say that now) take the piss (yeah, say that too) out of themselves in such a wonderfully refreshing way. It really gives credence to them taking the piss out of the UK :) Equal opportunity slander!
Zo
wow pretty cool list.
Sounds a lot like a liberal list to me.
To be a Conservative list you forgot to list Anti-Abortion, Anti-Gay marriage, XI does not apply to conservatives at all. You don't find many liberals in a KKK rally. Line VII needs to read "Divinely Inspired" and Line VIII needs to add "and we will legislate what is right and wrong so the populace need not think about it." And line IV should add "unless you have enough money to buy your way out of responsibility"
Good idea, but not really a Conservative list at all.
I think you might be surprised about the bolded part. Of course a lot of people are surprised about this guy's political party as well.
As one of the few passport-holding Americans, I'd like to add that many, if not all countries in this wide world believe their own to be "the best" and often come up with some very tenuous logic to "prove" it. The absolutism of (neo)conservatism is one of the reasons America's foreign relations are in such a crappy state. The same for Iran, Taliban Afghanistan, North Korea, Thailand (my current home) and many other ideologically-oriented countries. Luckily, such absolutism allows adherents to not care. If what I've said offends, I didn't mean you. I don't mean to imply the countries listed above have problems of equal magnitude, just of similar cause. I certainly see a difference between US, N. Korea, and lovely Thailand.
Zo
Thailand is strongly ideological? What is their ideology? Just curious.
hmm; they have a King so guess that would be Ideal Monarchy.
Argh!!!!! *Shakes fist at the post monster.* I had stuff...interesting, erodite, funny, and brilliant stuff to say. This post was a thing of beauty, it truely was... Perfectly spelt, with gramar that would make an editor weep with joy, arguments so strong that your eyes would bleed trying to fault them.... I'd have turned all you heartless sods into tree huggers with it, but the post monster eat it. I am annoyed to say the least, so you'll have to make do with what ever old dross i scribble down later instead. ;)
Word of advice. If you are writing anything more than a few sentences, copy the entire thing just in case the post monster shows up. :)
Word of advice. If you are writing anything more than a few sentences, copy the entire thing just in case the post monster shows up. :)
I know this. I have learned by mistake many times... And in the quarter second after i posted i realised 'ah crap, Ctrl-A, Ctrl-C' Before my fingers could act however, the greatest post in the world was lost.
I'm actually in favor of the former and against the later. For example, when a friend of mine asked what my solution to illegal immigration was, I said require companies that do buisness in the United States to pay a comparable wage to their employees outside the United States. It would both decrease the flow of jobs leaving the United States and increase the standard of living in countries like Mexico and other third world nations that American countries run sweat shops.
So presumably your advocating regulation (to make sure the businesses comply) and an increase in taxes (to pay for the government department that takes care of this).
In effect I see this same theme repeatedly. Our modern high 'tech capitalist world seems to require significant intervention by governments just to keep it going. The recent economic crisis is a good example of this - especially in trying to grapple how the system is dealt with in order to avoid this issue in the future,
In the end we seem to have a number of options.
Increased regulation in order to insure that companies that are too big to fail either are not allowed to become so big (presumably by taxing them based on size though other methods could be utilized).
Or they are subject to stringent regulations so that they can't (legally anyway) get in over their head.
Or they simply are allowed to fail...this option has the much appeal (from the left as well as the right - nobody loves fat cat bankers and it galls to be cleaning up their mess while they retire to their cottages the size of mansions). Unfortunately the last time we even partly allowed that to happen things went to hell in a hand basket as we ended up in a world war. This is the kind of thing that can rock capitalism to its foundations and the end result usually seems to be some extreme ideology ending with -ism (fascism, communism, maybe we'd invent some other -ism if we tried this today).
In essence we don't seem to have a reasonable option on the table that does not involve government.
One can even get more basic then this in a critique of small government and capitalism. The creation of a monopoly is a natural result of capitalism. Its one reasonably obvious end goal of a company but such a state of affairs is probably not to the benefit of the people living in a capitalist society...with the possible exception of government monopolies held in trust for the people of said societies. Hence, here again we seem to require that the government intervene in the system in order to keep it functioning reasonably well. These are just two examples but one can sit around and come up with a fair number of other cases.
The ideal of the self reliant cowboy on the open plains is romantic and appealing but I question its actual utility in the modern world.
Word of advice. If you are writing anything more than a few sentences, copy the entire thing just in case the post monster shows up. :)I know this. I have learned by mistake many times... And in the quarter second after i posted i realised 'ah crap, Ctrl-A, Ctrl-C' Before my fingers could act however, the greatest post in the world was lost.
Holy Quram, Batman!
|
|
wow pretty cool list.
Sounds a lot like a liberal list to me.
To be a Conservative list you forgot to list Anti-Abortion, Anti-Gay marriage, XI does not apply to conservatives at all. You don't find many liberals in a KKK rally. Line VII needs to read "Divinely Inspired" and Line VIII needs to add "and we will legislate what is right and wrong so the populace need not think about it." And line IV should add "unless you have enough money to buy your way out of responsibility"
Good idea, but not really a Conservative list at all.
No offense meant but wow man.... nothing in there is anything to do with being a conservative. and the list quoted is not liberal.
In the poll, conducted in 2005 of 1000 citizens each of The United States, Italy, Canada, Great Britan, Germany, France and Japan, there were a number of questions asked. Two results really stood out to me. The first was that 75% of Americans said they were proud of their country. 54% of Canadians said the same thing, 38% of British, 22% of Italians, 19% of Germans, 14% of Japanese, and 12% of French citizens responded similarly. The other was that 84% of...
Only 38% of Britons are proud of Britain, 12% of the French?. These numbers don't sound plausible...what exactly was the question?
|
|
But that's the exact issue Shem brought up, that, from his point of view, helping people out financially creates a dependency. I just pointed out that a lot of people, you included it seems, would rather pay to charities than pay a percentage of your taxes to help these people out. But people are then still being helped financially, thus, in Shem's view, creating a dependency, just from the charities this time, not the government. Thus charities are just as "evil" as "big government" in this instance.
I would take all the money just given to people and create either a job program or a program where they could learn a trade or something. Then it falls on them to pursue a job or to create a trade.
But I would not just give people money to sit at home and watch TV. In this country we can all create a productive life for ourselves that we can feel pround about.
I don't think that charities giving these same people money for no reason should happen either. It does create dependence. I do think that when extraordinary circumstances happen there should be a safety net that a person can use to hold it together for a short period while they recreate their life but not just support them indefinately.
|
|
Only 38% of Britons are proud of Britain, 12% of the French?. These numbers don't sound plausible...what exactly was the question?
In the poll, conducted in 2005 of 1000 citizens each of The United States, Italy, Canada, Great Britan, Germany, France and Japan, there were a number of questions asked. Two results really stood out to me. The first was that 75% of Americans said they were proud of their country. 54% of Canadians said the same thing, 38% of British, 22% of Italians, 19% of Germans, 14% of Japanese, and 12% of French citizens responded similarly. The other was that 84% of...
The question was "Are you proud of your country?"